The rogue - is it a necessary class?

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Most classes aren't particularly necessary -- you can almost always find another way to replicate a given class feature.

Borrowing a bit from Monte Cook, though -- it's the roles that are important. There's a need for the sneaky guy, and there's a need for the skill specialist. The rogue combines the two -- but other characters can conceivably fill those roles.

Personally, I love the rogue class. I played a lot of thieves in 1E, second only to rangers, and I think the flexibility given to the current rogue is fantastic -- you can be a swashbuckling light-fighter, the trap specialist, a traditional "thief", an information gatherer, a social gadfly, a merchant, a scoundrel .... If your player isn't enjoying the class, I suggest it's because of one of two reasons: (1) she hasn't figured out what kind of character her rogue is, and so doesn't really know how to excel within the party -- if she's just a little bit good at everything, that's a tough role to play for most people; better to specialize and have a clear role, or (2) the nature of the campaign doesn't make the rogue's niche valuable. A tumbling combat rogue who only fights undead will be unhappy. A social skills rogue who only goes on wilderness and dungeon adventures will be unhappy. A trap-detecting treasure-seeking rogue will be unhappy if the campaign doesn't include trap filled dungeons.

There's a balance between the role the player wants to play and the role the DM allows her to play; with the right balance, any class can be viable.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Wow.

In my games, I urge just about everyone to pick up at least a level or two of Rogue. It is, in my opinion, the most useful class in the game. Since my current D&D party is all classes with either FC: Rogue or FC: Any (I house-ruled the Half Orc), most of them have at least a little Rogue.

Stealth is vital for scouting and avoiding fights, and being able to sneak past without Invisibility is vital. Even with Invisibility and Silence, some creatures can spot you just by the magic aura-- or by Scent.

Social skills can be incredibly useful on anything that has a mind and understands language. It's not as handy in dungeons, but once you get topside, you can be invaluable to a party more focused on killing things and taking their stuff.

The main problem here seems to be that the adventure so far is built to make the Rogue completely useless-- they're far from useless naturally. Since I don't think you've done it on purpose, perhaps you can give her some more to work with for next time, provided she's having enough fun to keep playing?

 

[diaglo]

Wow.

In my games, I urge just about everyone to pick up at least a level or two of Rogue. It is, in my opinion, the most useful class in the game. Since my current D&D party is all classes with either FC: Rogue or FC: Any (I house-ruled the Half Orc), most of them have at least a little Rogue.

if you are/were playing 3ed. you needed to take 1 lvl of Ranger and 3 lvls of rogue to truly min/maximize.

 

[Nifft]

If you aren't including a lot of traps, let her play a Bard or Ranger instead. They've got nearly as many skill points, which is the non-combat, non-trap part of the Rogue -- the part which sounds important in your campaign.

-- N

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

if you are/were playing 3ed. you needed to take 1 lvl of Ranger and 3 lvls of rogue to truly min/maximize.

I play 3.5, and the only thing you needed to stop Ranger cheese was Power Word: No. Since Two Weapon Fighting is only a single feat now, and Rangers don't get it until second level, the only Rangers I see are people who want to play hardcore wilderninjas.

And if someone wants to take 3 levels of Rogue to maximize the benefits, I'm all for allowing it. Three levels isn't a cheap grab for quick power, it's picking up the basics of stealth and interaction to enhance your adventuring career.

(Besides, everyone knows the real 1-level dip for power is any kind of fighting class taking a level of Sorceror for True Strike.)

 

[diaglo]

I play 3.5, and the only thing you needed to stop Ranger cheese was Power Word: No. Since Two Weapon Fighting is only a single feat now, and Rangers don't get it until second level, the only Rangers I see are people who want to play hardcore wilderninjas.

And if someone wants to take 3 levels of Rogue to maximize the benefits, I'm all for allowing it. Three levels isn't a cheap grab for quick power, it's picking up the basics of stealth and interaction to enhance your adventuring career.

(Besides, everyone knows the real 1-level dip for power is any kind of fighting class taking a level of Sorceror for True Strike.)

yeah, 3.5 changed some of the cheese. rogues lost some of their 3 lvl goodness. uncanny dodge, evasion...take a look it wasn't all in the skill points or sneak attack.

 

[Ruined]

I wish my group had a rogue, but no such luck. There are occasional traps that they suffer from in the dungeons, but they get by without much problem. Where they really hurt is gathering information and their occasional need to take stealthy actions.

I'm an avid fan of the class myself. But I also think playing it requires initiative on the part of the player. You have to want to quietly scout ahead, or pick that pocket, or infiltrate that enemy base. If you're a reactive player, you can quickly find yourself with little to do (which probably applies to all classes).

 

[Kemrain]

I almost always play some flavor of Rogue, or at least take a few levels multiclass. Rogue is the 'best class evar' because it can do SO much. Take three levels of it and your combat skills bearly suffer at all, your skills improve dramatically (especially if you hyperspecialize) your reflex save improves greatly (Evasion helps like crazy)... It's fantastically useful. And if you straight progress as Rogue, you get some pretty amazing abilities. Slippery Mind would have helped against that Dominate, I think; It's an enchantment, isn't it? (No Book ATM, just seems right.)

Rogue is the gift you give yourself. If your player is having trouble feeling useful, perhapse some multiclassing is in order. If you go Rogue Ranger you can be an amazingly deadly ranged combatant, Especially if you get that improved invisibility, and attack a favored enemy. Rogue Barbarians are devistating in close combat, and the d12 HP offsets the D6 nicely.

It sounds, to me, like your player just doesn't understand the versatility and power the Rogue offers. Skills can't be taken away or Dispelled, and that's the main thing that makes the Rogue great. Even naked in a jail cell, the Rogue is full of tricks. My most favoritest class, by far.

- Kemrain the Rogue 4, Fighter 1, Ranger 1

 

[the Jester]

I won't repeat the points already made about how the rogue is far from a trap-disabling specialist, but I will add this on the subject: if you don't want to use the things that rogues excel at in your game (including traps), then you're sort of undermining the class' utility. And urging a player to play a rogue when you are eliminating the need for some of their abilities is just kinda... ummm... silly.

No offense intended, of course.

 

[Desdichado]

It sounds like you're just not using the rogue for what she's best at; scouting ahead, infiltrating areas, using charm and personality.

Sure, you don't need a rogue. You don't really need any of the classes if you don't want 'em.

And not to tell you how to play your game, but I'm pretty leery of DMs that say I need the stereotypical balanced party, and I have to play a certain role (regardless of what I want to play) because the party has a vacancy. I'd suggest that the people who know how to make the most of rogues are those that enjoy playing them.